Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hans Niemann 2019-crop.jpg

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Hans Niemann 2019-crop.jpg

• Also File:Hans Niemann 2019.jpg
• Also File:Hans Niemann 2019.png

Although the video itself is marked under CC, the image was taken by the subject through his webcam, making it his copyright. No evidence that he released the copyright to the uploader, and it seems unlikely that he would. Ovinus (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Does this also apply to the uncropped version? Bruce leverett (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I have added it above - whatever is done to one should be done to the other. --B (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this analysis is correct. Obviously if Hans makes a Youtube video of himself, publishes that video, and then someone uses his video for commentary, they don't own the copyright to his video. That case would be open and shut. But that is NOT what is happening here. This is an interview with five people on webcams arranged and published by PRO Chess League. At the very least, they would share the copyright. I would think they would actually have exclusive copyright - they are exercising full creative control of the content. That to me says they own the copyright. --B (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

That's a reasonable perspective. But the subject took the video, and unless there was some sort of verbal or written contract transferring copyright between the subject and the uploader, there's nothing there. PRO Chess League has the right to use the content in their broadcast, because the subject (implicitly or explicitly) allowed them to do so. But, for example, could PCL take the webcam photo and sell it for money? Ovinus (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

When you talk about a contract transferring the copyright, you are assuming that Hans Niemann would have otherwise owned the copyright to begin with. I don't think that's correct at all. I think at the very least there's joint copyright. (If there is joint copyright, then under US law, either party can grant permission to use the copyrighted work.) Copyright belongs to the person or entity exercising creative control. Who was exercising creative control here? Copyright happens when something is embodied in a "fixed" medium. Who was the one placing the video in a "fixed" medium? So I really don't think Hans has any claim at all to the copyright and thus a contract or lack thereof doesn't matter - the copyright belongs to the entity that did the creative work and that "fixed" the work in a tangible medium. That is PRO Chess League - not Hans. --B (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Hans Niemann 2019.png should probably be included as well, as it is taken of the same subject in the same video and the same rationale would apply. AviationFreak (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I added it to the list --B (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• Keep as uploader; The video seems like a standard joint work; the league set it up and arranged the panel so it might have slightly stronger claim, but they at least have an equal joint copyright in the whole. --SJ+ 19:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• Keep as per Commons:Joint_authorship and because, in this case, there’s no (or very little) creative aspect to looking at the webcam on one’s computer while there was a lot of creativity in editing the video, compositing the people, arranging the questions, etc. all of which has been released under a Wikimedia-compatible CC license. There may be issues with personality rights, but that applies to pretty much any public figure whose picture we have on the Wikipedia (Personality rights generally apply to uses which Wikipedia doesn’t do, such as using a celebrity’s image or likeness to advertise a product without permission, or to have another actor replace someone’s role without permission from the original actor) Samboy (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

We also have no evidence and not even hints that he didn't release it. Proving releases is only necessary within Commons, not on YouTube. PurpleFun (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The lack of evidence that he didn't release it is not something we can rely on. If Hans exclusively owns the copyright, then we must have either (a) his permission to use it under an acceptable free license or (b) proof that he granted permission to the PRO Chess League to publish it under terms that include sub-licensing. But I all of this is completely irrelevant because Hans at most would have shared copyright. (I really don't think he has any claim of copyright at all - he was neither the one exercising creative control, nor the one embodying the material in a "fixed medium".) --B (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Deleted: This is analogous to a montage. Each of the individual images -- whether stills in a montage or videos as here -- have a copyright owned by their creator. Then the montage -- or the video as a whole -- has a copyright owned by its creator. Niemann had creative control over his image -- lighting, angle, and so forth, just as much as any person taking a selfie does. So he has a copyright and there is no evidence that he has freely licensed it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Restored: as per [1]. Yann (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)